Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 19812
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
PRINCE VARGHESE – Appellant
Versus
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARK – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 8134 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.JOHN MATHEW, SRI.MATHEW JOHN (JMA), SRI.VINU SASIDHARAN, SMT.SUPRIYA B. PRASANNAN, SHRI.AJITH PAUL THOMAS
For the Respondents: SMT.ALKA WARRIAR, CGC, SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE -GP
The court directs expedited disposal of oppositions in trademark applications due to undue delay.
Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of oppositions No. 972051 and 972052 against Trademark Application No. 3107311. The court recognized the undue delay of more than 5 years in processing oppositions and decided to expedite the process. The court directed the first respondent to consider the oppositions and pass appropriate orders within eight months after providing a hearing opportunity to all parties. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks relief for trademark opposition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court orders expedited decision on oppositions. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner seeks for the following relief:
“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the 1st respondent to hear and dispose of the oppositions Nos.972051 and 972052 filed against Trademark Application No.3107311(MILANO & Device).”
2. Petitioner is an applicant and the proprietor of a Trademark. The application was filed on 25.11.2015 which was objected to by two oppositions filed as Opposition Nos.972051 and 972052. The grievance of the petitioner stems from the fact that despite lapse of more than 5 years, the oppositions raised against petitioner’s application for Trademark has not been disposed of.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Central Government Counsel on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of dispensing with notice to the 3rd respondent, considering the nature of the order that is proposed to be issued.
Since the oppositions filed by the 3rd respondent is pending consideration, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on opposition Nos.972051 and 972052 filed by the 3rd respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer period of eight months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the 3rd respondent.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
